Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
LMFAO THIS ARTICLE
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
He's a Jew, you have no idea of the connections he has.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
LOL! I read the comments to the tweet and mostly it's people getting triggered. Thank god this place is gonna have safe spaces and avocado burgers. Plus participation ribbons, lol.
This is free publicity and the people whining were more than likely never going to attend any game anyways.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Half her platform seems to be socialist bullshit. Her ability to highlight a real problem(like college tuition) is negated by the batshit insane idea of not only free college, but just free money and a guaranteed federal job.
She's flirting with socialism to the point where she's at least letting it finger bang her in an alley after a late night of eyeing it at the bar.
And I can't figure out how an economics major spews this wage gap bullshit. She is either lying or dumb. Which would you bet on?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jul 20th, 2018 at 10:52 AM
No worries, dude. The other stuff you posted was interesting enough
Yeah, things have generally been slowly getting better throughout history. We've made considerable progress as a species just in the past century. I don't see why we need further pieces of legislation to make things 'more better', 'cause forcing things to be 'good' doesn't actually work all that often, especially not when things are progressing anyway at a natural and safe pace.
__________________
Last edited by Scribble on Jul 20th, 2018 at 10:54 AM
"You saw me do something I very rarely do,” Goldberg said when the show returned from commercial break. “You saw me lose my cool. And I’m not proud of it and I don’t like it.”
“But I also don’t like being accused of being hysterical, because that’s one of the things I try not to be on this show,” Goldberg added."
Today I learned that if you don't like being accused of being hysterical you should act hysterical.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
The Young Turks are being sued for racism. Lololol.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Pirro is a shrill and vile cvnt. She went to plug her pro-Trump/anti-liberal book on a show I'm assuming has a predominately-liberal audience, and resorted to gaslighting and deflection when the liberal hosts asked her to defend her positions defending Trump.
If you are invited to one's home, and you pull that kind of shit on your host mid-discussion, it should come as no surprise when you are told to leave.
She doesn't regret what it though, because she was only there to plug her shitty book and stir the pot, knowing the resulting aftermath would generate publicity for both her book and herself. Instant cred among conservative circles.
I'm not defending Pirro. It was hilarious how the audience begins laughing at her when she says she can "recognize a con".
But Whoopi still acted hysterical. And that is what Trump Derangement Syndrome is at it's basic core. Whoopi got hysterical. At one point she even says "I'm tired of people starting conversations with 'all mexicans are liars and rapists'".
That is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I also question the comparison to being invited into ones home. This is some sort of talk show that is, frankly, known for this type of shit lol. They discuss politics and sometimes it gets heated. They have said more than their fair share of dumb things, including whoopi. It's not their home. They invited Pirro in hopes to get ratings, just like Pirro only went on there to get publicity for her book. They were both using each other.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Whoopi was clearly annoyed, but hysterical is overselling it.
Ratings are important, but I don't think booting Pirro was part of the original plan. Talk show hosts frequently showcase guests they don't agree with, but rarely do they kick them off the show for differences of opinion. Instead of defending her claims, Pirro's response to having her claims questioned was to essentially call the hosts crazy, stupid, delusional, and whatever else "Trump derangement syndrome" is meant to describe. Whoopi has always been one to speak her mind, and wasn't about to be disrespected via gaslighting on her own show.
This is awesome, super thankful you took the time to respond. I'll keep the numbering as I respond to your points (don't worry, this won't be a shitshow, we largely agree).
1. Don't be so quick to dismiss the medicare for all option. Depends on how it is implemented. Bernie's suggestion, which would make it the most absurdly beneficial healthcare plan in the world (no copays, nothing...just show up...similar to UK's NHS but it sounds even "better" than NHS), is estimated, at most, by credible economists, to cost$2.8 Trillion. That's about $1.4 trillion more than we spend on healthcare, now. Tthat's only how much the government spends and does not include the money the Americans, themselves, spend on healthcare...which means both together added up probably end up being much much more than $2.8 trillion. And in fact, I'm correct: we spend $3.2 Trillion on healthcare or about 17% of our GDP. That's ****ed up.
But let's dial down from Bernie's stupid generous healthcare for all. Healthcare costs under systems like "medicare for all" are significantly less than the US current spends. You don't need super systems like Bernie's to save taxpayer money while still fixing our f*cked up healthcare system.
There are multiple reasons for why "medicare for all" would save money. One of them is administrative costs which are around 1/6 as small as normal systems. There are ways to reduce those even further than 1/6, of course.
Negotiating medical procedure costs and guaranteeing payment through a medicare-like program can vastly reduce the true-costs of healthcare, for one. The IFHP collects data on drug and healthcare procedure costs and the differences between countries that have better healthcare systems is shocking.
Medicare-like programs don't have to spend nearly as much as marketing and advertising as commericial insurance systems. Some medical insurance companies spend 15% of their revenue on marketing which is absurd to me if you understand the numbers involved in insurance.
Here is my caution: if done even halfway decently, medicare-for-all would save money, big time. If done like Bernie wants it, it would break-even or cost a few hundred billions dollars more each year. We need something like medicare-for-all that is better than Obamacare but not so extravagant as Bernie's solution. If I was to put it on a 100-point scale, Obamacare is a 0 and Bernie's solution is a 100, we need something at a 40. Where costs are still somewhat shared under a medicare-for-all, like how it currently works, but it is capped and controlled in moderation.
2. Mostly agree. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I do believe local communities or even states should be able to offer tax-funded housing to homeless and the like. This is why I don't take as hard of a line as you do on this position. If they want to subsidize housing for people like veterans or homeless, that's alright. They can even expand it to whomever they want. Beyond local, I am unsure if the Fed. Gov. should be involved.
3. In general, we agree. I have heard arguments for why there are plenty of jobs for everyone if we did it properly and a jobs-guarantee would nigh-eliminate welfare programs. I'm open to more discussion around this before I dismiss it as "socialism."
4. Agreed.
5. Damn straight.
6. I see ICE as a wasteful use of government money. Shouldn't our military be be protecting our borders? Why are they protecting other countries' borders? Bring our troops home, reduce 9/10s of them, and use the remaining 1/10 to secure our borders and work on domestic defense. Seems like a no-brainer.
7. No worries. Some people shit on PR and think of it as a shithole country that should not be part of the US. Many others, because it is a US Territory, think we should make it the 51st state and to stop treating it as a red-headed stepchild.
8. Very fair and very intellectually honest.
9. Agreed that it is too vague. We need someone (Maybe DS0 will do that for us) to clarify what she means on this point.
10. I do not really disagree with you. What about government grants/scholarships? I benefited from that as the NSF gave me a scholarship for much of my Cybersecurity degrees.
11. We pretty much 100% agree, here.
12. Nice. We agree, here.
13. Somewhat agree. Need that clarification, similar to 9, before getting into a detailed response.
14. No worries, this shit gets complicated. I am interested in it and I did some academic work on this topic in college because I liked it. I'm not quite a layman by I am not even close to an expert, either.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 20th, 2018 at 06:14 PM
This is also a fair idea. But some feminists originally wanted equal rights. This truly does mean that men and women both get 6 months off for maternity leave (for example) instead of just women.
Equal rights are equal rights. Tautological, I know, but that was the original point of feminism. The 3rd wave has distorted this. Also, your further commentary is accurate in that "feminism" is a polarizing term and egalitarianism is a much better term for what original feminism was seeking.
I am not committing the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" by talking about "real feminism." These are historical considerations of feminism, not the "No True Scotsman Fallacy." There were also historical reasons for why first and second wave feminists maintained the "feminism" label. But, yes, I do understand that the label is now polarizing and perhaps even inappropriate when fighting for equal gender rights.
Do it! I would be very interested in reading something like this from people OTHER THAN extremely Democratic Party redditors (it gets quite tiring only reading opinions from Democrats about her).
KMC Community Forums
Jul 20th, 2018 07:51 AM
